Yin v. Thermo Fisher Scientific

Filing 10

Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING JURISDICTION AND AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT. (Copy mailed to plaintiff on this date) (Maynard, Timothy)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LEI YIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.
17-10900-FDS

ORDER CONCERNING JURISDICTION AND AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT
SAYLOR, J.
On August 31, 2017, the Court directed plaintiff to show cause why this action should not
be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff responded to that order on
September 18, and filed additional supporting documents on September 25, 2017.
Plaintiff’s response appears to assert claims for discrimination based on his race and age
in violation of federal law, among other claims. The Court will construe that response as a form
of amended complaint. The Court accordingly concludes that it does have subject-matter
jurisdiction. The complaint, however, does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
Rule 8 provides: “A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: (1) a short and
plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has
jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support; (2) a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought,
which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8. The
purpose of this rule is to “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.” Calvi v. Knox Cty., 470 F.3d 422, 430 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting

Educadores Puertorriqueños en Acción v. Hernández, 367 F.3d 61, 66 (1st Cir. 2004)). The
statement of the claim must “at least set forth minimal facts as to who did what to whom, when,
where, and why.” Id. (quoting Educadores, 367 F.3d at 68). The plaintiff’s obligation to
provide the grounds of his claim “requires more than labels and conclusions.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A court is not “bound to accept as true a legal conclusion
couched as a factual allegation.” Id. (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)).
Plaintiff is therefore directed to file an amended complaint setting forth a short and plain
statement of his claims, whether arising under federal or state law, and otherwise complying with
Rule 8. That amended complaint must be filed on or before October 17, 2017. Failure to
comply with this order may result in dismissal of the complaint.
So Ordered.

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor
F. Dennis Saylor IV
United States District Judge
Dated: September 26, 2017

2